Brazier was a good example of the difference: in high school he negative split his way to 1:47; the following year, he ran positive splits to 1:45i his first race and eventually 1:43.55 outdoors.
Brazier was a good example of the difference: in high school he negative split his way to 1:47; the following year, he ran positive splits to 1:45i his first race and eventually 1:43.55 outdoors.
definitely agree, there are many scenarios of fatigue in the 800 and 400-800m segments (surges) can really hurt in distance races too.
You have the reading comprehension of a 12 year old.
markschultz25 wrote:
If you could develop a theoretical drug that automatically kept the pH levels in your tissue from building up above some low level of tolerance, should you be able to hold an infinite sprint until glycogen stores are completely depleted?
That article was an eye-opener for me. Didn't realize that the fatigue was a result of water and calcium leaving your cells to balance the acidity level in the surrounding areas. So the only thing we need is something that will trick the body into thinking there is no acidity present.
people should stop looking at positive/negative splits just by splitting the distance in half and comparing the times. i think it's better to cut the 800 into every 200 meters instead of 400. the reason why many people run the first lap so quickly is because they quickly accelerate into high speeds within the first 200 meters and slow down from there. the 2nd 200m in the first lap is probably not so quick compared to the first but nobody would notice since nobody does splits per 200m. it might be ideal to try to run the first 200m at a neutral pace and then speed up into a fast stride in the next 400m and then suffer the last 200m. you will still end up doing positive splits but the fastest part of the race would be in the middle and not the first half.
I'd run PR 800s with a moderate pace, then a hard kick from 300 out.
I'd also PR'd off a fast pace through 600, then a backwards crawl to the finish.
Guess which was faster? Yes, the super-painful "going backwards" at the end version.
thejeff wrote:
Doesn't add up wrote:Really, why is just about every sub 1:43 in history a positive split?
Simple: because of the very real fear of getting boxed in. Physiologically, runners are better off positive splitting. If there were a way to do that without having to run the second lap in lanes 3&4, elites would try much harder to do it.
Related: this is why the 800 is so exciting; it is the only race in which people will still go out too fast.
I'm confused, coach, what is this 'physiology' that favors negative splitting and why do 400m runners also universally run with a massive positive split? They have their own lanes.
For me it was more frustration than anything. 150M out and lactic kicks in. Grinding that lat last 100m is annoying . When you were running so well.
Yes, in the typical Diamond League 800 the first 200 is invariably the fastest of the race; runners slow down from there! Bonkers that, from a standing start, the first 200 should be the quickest.
Thinking about the negative/positive split thing. Snell broke the 880 yard record in 1962 with a very fast first lap - huge positive split. Four years later Ryun breaks the record with an equally huge positive split.
Evidence since then suggests the fastest times come from a negative split, but not massively so, with the first 400 being relatively even paced - ie no dramatically fast first 200.
Suggest; a 400/800 runner might benefit from a very negative split; a 800/1500 runner might prefer a more even paced effort?
HardLoper wrote:
thejeff wrote:Simple: because of the very real fear of getting boxed in. Physiologically, runners are better off positive splitting. If there were a way to do that without having to run the second lap in lanes 3&4, elites would try much harder to do it.
Related: this is why the 800 is so exciting; it is the only race in which people will still go out too fast.
I'm confused, coach, what is this 'physiology' that favors negative splitting and why do 400m runners also universally run with a massive positive split? They have their own lanes.
Sprints have a different psychology. You accelerate for only a few seconds, and the last part of the race (even in the 100m) is simply a contest to see who can slow down the least. Obviously, the longer the sprint, the more you will slow down. Leaving out of blocks encourages a fast start, as does trying to make up a stagger (or running blind if you are outside), so the reason for the fast start should be fairly obvious.
You are playing dumb with the physiology question. Obviously, the longer the distance, the more the physiology of avoiding a positive split matters (and neither you nor I know the magic distance for each runner where it becomes insignificant), but it almost certainly plays a factor for durations approaching 2 minutes.
I have watched a lot of 800s and ran a lot of 800s.
I ran 1:49 twice.
Once splitting 52/57 and once splitting 54/55.
I probably had a 1:48 in me with a 53 first lap.
The more even split race hurt less. It also hurt less because I won that race.
Decelerating hurts, especially when you lose.
It is a very difficult distance to run properly and hurts when you push your limits because it's a constant slow down for a long way.
If this were true, we wouldn't see so many PRs from positive splits. The race tactics should be making you run slower.
If you were right, we would see the vast majority of prs and records set in negative split time trials.
Like you said, we've been over this before.
Please pop the real one. wrote:
If this were true, we wouldn't see so many PRs from positive splits. The race tactics should be making you run slower.
If you were right, we would see the vast majority of prs and records set in negative split time trials.
Like you said, we've been over this before.
Everyone has a plan until the gun sounds.
Why does everyone go out too fast? Because everyone goes out too fast.
markschultz25 wrote:
If you could develop a theoretical drug that automatically kept the pH levels in your tissue from building up above some low level of tolerance, should you be able to hold an infinite sprint until glycogen stores are completely depleted?
That article was an eye-opener for me. Didn't realize that the fatigue was a result of water and calcium leaving your cells to balance the acidity level in the surrounding areas. So the only thing we need is something that will trick the body into thinking there is no acidity present.
Sodium bicarbonate...
Lactic acid? ugh...
I believe this would cause death. Acidosis is an actual medical condition and you will die if it goes uncorrected.
markschultz25 wrote:
If you could develop a theoretical drug that automatically kept the pH levels in your tissue from building up above some low level of tolerance, should you be able to hold an infinite sprint until glycogen stores are completely depleted?
That article was an eye-opener for me. Didn't realize that the fatigue was a result of water and calcium leaving your cells to balance the acidity level in the surrounding areas. So the only thing we need is something that will trick the body into thinking there is no acidity present.
The article says you start out aerobic for the first 300m. But the Spencer, Gastin, and Payne research says the opposite.
LetsRun won't let me link the IAAF article because the address is too long, but Google Spencer Gastin Payne IAAF. Look at figure 3 which shows anaerobic dominant early but aerobic (black dots in graph) dominant from 30 seconds and beyond.
Fvck! We really need a media source to tell us this??!! It's "news"??! Most everyone here knows this fact very well, first hand... from years of experience.
Backwards wrote:
I'd run PR 800s with a moderate pace, then a hard kick from 300 out.
I'd also PR'd off a fast pace through 600, then a backwards crawl to the finish.
Guess which was faster? Yes, the super-painful "going backwards" at the end version.
Also for me, my best performances have been in positive split races for 800m. The 800 is the transition race race between sprints & distance. That 1st 400 at very high speeds just does not hurt enough sometimes to keep your effort in check. But by 600 to often it can turn into a torture session even when you're very fit. Apparently, you gain so much distance that simply hanging on with dead legs is not enough to get a personal fast time. But it hurts!
The 800 is the only race that sent me to the medics! And I've suffered through many 5ks and a few marathons.
However, I still suspect that a more even pace is best if you can hit it. It's tough to hit it because you're racing and in such a short race you don't have as much time to fool around.